If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Youíre aware of giant bi-pedal reptiles running around at those times that were not dinosaurs? This ought to be interesting, which ones?
Ahh, so now that biologist is a liar too, and all of those aboriginals were quite knowledgeable about dinosaurs that hadnít been discovered yet? Itís all one giant conspiracy! :-P
Atheistsí: You canít prove God exists!SW: *Provides a valid and sound syllogism proving God has to existAtheists: That doesnít work!SW: Why not?Atheists: We donít know, but it just doesnít work! I bet you believe dinosaurs and humans coexisted huh?SW: SureAtheists: what! How could you possibly believe that!? Whereís your evidence?SW: Well since I already proved God exists I could just use scripture to support my position now.Atheists: No! Thatís not going to work!SW: Why not?Atheists: We donít know but it just canít! Do you have any evidence?SW: Sure, soft tissue was found in dinosaur bones and it cannot last for millions of years.Atheists: Soft tissue can last that long!SW: Oh really? How?Atheists: We donít know! If dinosaurs did live with people there should be tons of stories about them and you donít have any stories do you?SW: Sure I do, there are thousands of stories about large reptiles terrorizing people from antiquity, the Bible has two such accounts, even modern groups in Australia and Africa have accounts of such animals.Atheists: Thatís not evidence!SW: Why not?Atheists: We donít know! Youíre crazy!SW: Well you sure got me on that one.

I didn't realize that the word dragon automatically means giant bi-pedal reptile. Who knows what they considered dragons at the time, and who knows if they were talking about a real life being or a mythical creature.

As for the biologist, what is more likely, that 1 guy is not telling truth or dinosaurs still exist and only one guy has seen it. I'm guessing by your logic that you believe in aliens. I mean, how many people have claimed to have seen them. Biologists are human like the rest of us, they're not immune to making a lie in order to advance their career.

Your little Atheist vs SW thing actually goes more like this.

Atheistsí: You canít prove God exists!SW: Thinks he provided a valid and sound syllogism proving God has to exist.Atheists: ummm, that doesn't make any sense SW: Why not?Atheists: provides detailed and logical reasons why the syllogism SW created is flawedSW: ignores atheist posts and claims to have established God exists.SW: Thinks he already proved God exists, and starts to use scripture to support his position now.

I could keep going, but it's basically the same scenario over and over. You make an illogical claim, people give a detailed rational response, to which you ignore and claim victory. Hell, one time you didn't even need us, you owned your own argument with your link. lmao.

You can't prove the that. That's just your opinion. We know knowledge exists, you still haven't proven God exists, or even proven that knowledge is impossible without God.

Yes, I can prove it. Yes, I did prove it. Yes knowledge exists, and yes my indirect syllogism proves that knowledge could only exist if God exists, you whining about that doesnít change anything.

It's a completely un-demonstrable/ un-testable assertion. Ergo, it isn't factual; ergo, your syllogism isn't valid. Premises need to be verifiable in order to be valid, you can't prove that God exists, & you can't prove that knowledge can't exist without God.

Actually it is demonstrable; I am not sure why you find this so difficult to understand. I can account for all of the preconditions of knowledge with Godís existence, you canít account for any of them with your naturalism or any other religion for that matter; therefore Godís existence is demonstrated to be necessary for their existence since all other explanations fail, itís proof through negation and itís completely logically valid.

You can claim all day long that the Christian God accounts for all your "preconditions", but you still can't prove that he does.

I already did, see my syllogism that you have yet to refute.

You can say "he must!", but again you don't know that & you certainly can't prove it.

If knowledge is possible then yes He must, so you either have to assert that knowledge is not possible which of course is a self-refuting position or you have to concede God exists.

You can say "well no one else can prove how the universe was created so mine HAS to be right", but again, that's not how proof works.

Actually that is how proof works, appealing to any other explanation that has not yet been found is a fallacious appeal to ignorance, so youíre trying to argue against my valid syllogism by committing a logical fallacy, that doesnít work I am sorry.

I want you to consider again that absolutely nobody can prove how the universe was created, yet.

Whereís your proof to back up this assertion?

You forgot to mention the lock ness monster.

No I didnít forget to mention that, I chose not to.

I couldn't stop laughing when she said the discovery was dated back to about 68 million years.

Why is that funny? She made a scientific blunder; she used non-empirically tested assumptions to alter her emperically verified dates, of course thatís absurd. You could just admit you were wrong about people never finding soft tissue in dinosaur fossils but I think you have too much of an ego for that.

Talking about pulling the stuff that supports your theory and ignoring the stuff that doesn't.

Thatís funny considering that five days ago you asserted soft tissue has never been found in fossils (simply because you know that it couldnít survive for millions of years), and yet I proved you wrong. I didnít ignore anything that doesnít support my theory, she believes the fossils are millions of years old because of radiometric dating, since I have consistently asked for verification on that dating method and received nothing from you guys I am not ignoring anything, just merely waiting for you to back up your positionÖstill waiting.

By the way you need to keep your jokes consistent. You said to me earlier that it would be impossible to find dinasours and people together and now in this post you are claiming that they coexisted.

Please provide me with the quotation where I said it would be impossible to find them together. I simply said I would not expect to find them fossilized together because they wouldnít have lived near one another, that doesnít mean that they didnít coexist and interact on occasion. So whatís your explanation for all of the evidence I provided? You seem to be strangely silent on the whole matter.

Owned by your own link.

Not at all, where did I say anywhere that the people who found the soft tissue didnít believe the earth was old? They merely altered the interpretation of the evidence to support their conclusion. There is zero evidence to suggest soft tissue could last for millions of years, this is exactly why so many ďold earthersĒ completely rejected the notion it was soft tissue for the longest time, they knew what the implications of it were. Itís also why the article is called ďdinosaur shockerĒ; if we thought soft tissue could last that long then why would we be so ďshockedĒ when we found it? Sadly, people would rather embrace complete absurdities (i.e. soft tissue lasting for millions of years) rather than alter their presupposed views about the earthís history.

epic

I admire her for discovering something creationists have asserted was completely possible and your crowd asserted was impossible; I do not admire her for her ignorance when it comes to how faith, proof, and evidence relate. So youíre really proving nothing. Where is your evidence that soft tissue can last millions of years?

I wasn't aware this had become a cryptozoology thread. I love this kind of ****. Fascinating.

Only if you consider animals long thought to be extinct being found alive as part of cryptozoology, which I think thatís a bit of a stretch.

Statler loves this too. He loves it so much that he takes both sides.

I guess that way he can discuss and argue the subject all by himself for hours and days.

You seeming to fail in the area of reading comprehension in no way proves that I am on both sides of the fence on this. I was quite clear in my position, go back and re-read it, slowly and maybe even aloud this time.

I didn't realize that the word dragon automatically means giant bi-pedal reptile. Who knows what they considered dragons at the time, and who knows if they were talking about a real life being or a mythical creature.

It doesnít mean bi-pedal reptile, sometimes the people described a dragon that was a reptile on two legs and sometimes they described one that was on all four legs (such as the one in southern France I mentioned). Sometimes they had scales and sometimes they had plated armor- just like many dinosaurs. Why would some of the greatest historians we know, historians that we base our entire understanding of the Roman Empire on throw in mythical creatures out of the blue in their writings? These had to be real creatures that people interacted with; their descriptions are too consistent to be mythology. You just want to believe they were mythological because it challenges everything you want to believe about the earthís history, thatís what this comes down to.

As for the biologist, what is more likely, that 1 guy is not telling truth or dinosaurs still exist and only one guy has seen it.

You just committed the straw-man fallacy, itís not just one biologist; I mentioned several biologists, including the group from the Smithsonian Institute and the University of Chicago. Either way, scientific fact is not determined by majority or consensus so your argument fails either way.

I'm guessing by your logic that you believe in aliens. I mean, how many people have claimed to have seen them.

Actually most of the people I have talked to who believe in aliens are actually atheists, so I am not sure why youíd try to bring that up right now.

Biologists are human like the rest of us, they're not immune to making a lie in order to advance their career.

Yeah because taking the position that dinosaurs are still alive today (a position you all called me crazy for believing) is a great way to advance your career in academia! So first dinosaurs couldnít have lived with people because there were no accounts of them, and now when I provide accounts of large ferocious reptiles that fit the description of dinosaurs you call all of those people liars. It must be amazing knowing you can just dismiss evidence like that in order to preserve your preconceived notions about the earthís history.

Atheistsí: You canít prove God exists!

SW: Thinks he provided a valid and sound syllogism proving God has to exist.

Wrong, the syllogism I provided was formally valid, and thus far un-refuted so also sound, so what you or I think about it is irrelevant, it is what it is.

This never happened! Please point to where you or anyone else has demonstrated how the syllogism is either flawed in form or commits a logical fallacy. All you have done is say you donít like it, or have asserted it doesnít work, neither of which proves a thing.

I could keep going, but it's basically the same scenario over and over. You make an illogical claim, people give a detailed rational response, to which you ignore and claim victory.

More like I state a position, I back the position up with a valid and sound syllogism and you all proceed to whine about it. Of course whining doesnít get you anywhere in logic, so by all means continue doing it.

Hell, one time you didn't even need us, you owned your own argument with your link. lmao.

You mean that article that proved soft tissue had actually been found in dinosaur fossils nearly 20 years before you asserted it had never been found? Yeah, that was pretty funny alright. What this discussion has certainly proven if nothing else is that you all need to brush up on your facts, I have one guy asserting that brontosaurus existed and another asserting that soft tissue had never been found in dinosaur fossils nearly two decades after it was first discovered! Now that is actually funny stuff.

Total DepravityUnconditional ElectionLimited AtonementIrresistible GracePerseverance of the Saints

Your irrefutable syllogism is only irrefutable in your eyes because you refuse to acknowledge any argument to the contrary. I simply grew weary of typing the same thing over and over, hence the "lol"

Of course I refuse to acknowledge your attempts because they prove nothing. You have three ways in which you can refute my syllogism, and you have yet to even try any one of the three.

1.Prove the syllogism’s form is invalid. (Considering the indirect syllogism was first used by Kant and has been used by logicians for centuries I don’t think you’re going to get anywhere with this approach.)2.Demonstrate that the God of scripture actually doesn’t make sense of the preconditions of intelligibility.3.Demonstrate that there is an alternative explanation other than the God of scripture that can make sense of the preconditions of intelligibility.

Those are your only three options, saying you don’t like the syllogism, saying it’s not demonstrable because nobody can prove God exists (which just oozes circularity), or claiming it is merely my opinion do nothing to refute the syllogism. If you can’t refute the syllogism then you have no rational basis for denying its conclusion.

Of course I refuse to acknowledge your attempts because they prove nothing. You have three ways in which you can refute my syllogism, and you have yet to even try any one of the three.

1.Prove the syllogism’s form is invalid. (Considering the indirect syllogism was first used by Kant and has been used by logicians for centuries I don’t think you’re going to get anywhere with this approach.)2.Demonstrate that the God of scripture actually doesn’t make sense of the preconditions of intelligibility.3.Demonstrate that there is an alternative explanation other than the God of scripture that can make sense of the preconditions of intelligibility.

Those are your only three options, saying you don’t like the syllogism, saying it’s not demonstrable because nobody can prove God exists (which just oozes circularity), or claiming it is merely my opinion do nothing to refute the syllogism. If you can’t refute the syllogism then you have no rational basis for denying its conclusion.

Your syllogism makes claims and assumptions you nor me can prove or disprove. Hence your syllogism is useless. Just because you say God is needed for knowledge doesnt make it so. You have to demonstrate that to be true.

Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Yes, I can prove it. Yes, I did prove it. Yes knowledge exists, and yes my indirect syllogism proves that knowledge could only exist if God exists, you whining about that doesnít change anything.

Actually it is demonstrable; I am not sure why you find this so difficult to understand. I can account for all of the preconditions of knowledge with Godís existence, you canít account for any of them with your naturalism or any other religion for that matter; therefore Godís existence is demonstrated to be necessary for their existence since all other explanations fail, itís proof through negation and itís completely logically valid.

I already did, see my syllogism that you have yet to refute.

If knowledge is possible then yes He must, so you either have to assert that knowledge is not possible which of course is a self-refuting position or you have to concede God exists.

Actually that is how proof works, appealing to any other explanation that has not yet been found is a fallacious appeal to ignorance, so youíre trying to argue against my valid syllogism by committing a logical fallacy, that doesnít work I am sorry.

Whereís your proof to back up this assertion?

No I didnít forget to mention that, I chose not to.

Why is that funny? She made a scientific blunder; she used non-empirically tested assumptions to alter her emperically verified dates, of course thatís absurd. You could just admit you were wrong about people never finding soft tissue in dinosaur fossils but I think you have too much of an ego for that.

Thatís funny considering that five days ago you asserted soft tissue has never been found in fossils (simply because you know that it couldnít survive for millions of years), and yet I proved you wrong. I didnít ignore anything that doesnít support my theory, she believes the fossils are millions of years old because of radiometric dating, since I have consistently asked for verification on that dating method and received nothing from you guys I am not ignoring anything, just merely waiting for you to back up your positionÖstill waiting.

Please provide me with the quotation where I said it would be impossible to find them together. I simply said I would not expect to find them fossilized together because they wouldnít have lived near one another, that doesnít mean that they didnít coexist and interact on occasion. So whatís your explanation for all of the evidence I provided? You seem to be strangely silent on the whole matter.

Not at all, where did I say anywhere that the people who found the soft tissue didnít believe the earth was old? They merely altered the interpretation of the evidence to support their conclusion. There is zero evidence to suggest soft tissue could last for millions of years, this is exactly why so many ďold earthersĒ completely rejected the notion it was soft tissue for the longest time, they knew what the implications of it were. Itís also why the article is called ďdinosaur shockerĒ; if we thought soft tissue could last that long then why would we be so ďshockedĒ when we found it? Sadly, people would rather embrace complete absurdities (i.e. soft tissue lasting for millions of years) rather than alter their presupposed views about the earthís history.

I admire her for discovering something creationists have asserted was completely possible and your crowd asserted was impossible; I do not admire her for her ignorance when it comes to how faith, proof, and evidence relate. So youíre really proving nothing. Where is your evidence that soft tissue can last millions of years?

Only if you consider animals long thought to be extinct being found alive as part of cryptozoology, which I think thatís a bit of a stretch.

You seeming to fail in the area of reading comprehension in no way proves that I am on both sides of the fence on this. I was quite clear in my position, go back and re-read it, slowly and maybe even aloud this time.

It doesnít mean bi-pedal reptile, sometimes the people described a dragon that was a reptile on two legs and sometimes they described one that was on all four legs (such as the one in southern France I mentioned). Sometimes they had scales and sometimes they had plated armor- just like many dinosaurs. Why would some of the greatest historians we know, historians that we base our entire understanding of the Roman Empire on throw in mythical creatures out of the blue in their writings? These had to be real creatures that people interacted with; their descriptions are too consistent to be mythology. You just want to believe they were mythological because it challenges everything you want to believe about the earthís history, thatís what this comes down to.

You just committed the straw-man fallacy, itís not just one biologist; I mentioned several biologists, including the group from the Smithsonian Institute and the University of Chicago. Either way, scientific fact is not determined by majority or consensus so your argument fails either way.

Actually most of the people I have talked to who believe in aliens are actually atheists, so I am not sure why youíd try to bring that up right now.

Yeah because taking the position that dinosaurs are still alive today (a position you all called me crazy for believing) is a great way to advance your career in academia! So first dinosaurs couldnít have lived with people because there were no accounts of them, and now when I provide accounts of large ferocious reptiles that fit the description of dinosaurs you call all of those people liars. It must be amazing knowing you can just dismiss evidence like that in order to preserve your preconceived notions about the earthís history.

Wrong, the syllogism I provided was formally valid, and thus far un-refuted so also sound, so what you or I think about it is irrelevant, it is what it is.

This never happened! Please point to where you or anyone else has demonstrated how the syllogism is either flawed in form or commits a logical fallacy. All you have done is say you donít like it, or have asserted it doesnít work, neither of which proves a thing.

More like I state a position, I back the position up with a valid and sound syllogism and you all proceed to whine about it. Of course whining doesnít get you anywhere in logic, so by all means continue doing it.

You mean that article that proved soft tissue had actually been found in dinosaur fossils nearly 20 years before you asserted it had never been found? Yeah, that was pretty funny alright. What this discussion has certainly proven if nothing else is that you all need to brush up on your facts, I have one guy asserting that brontosaurus existed and another asserting that soft tissue had never been found in dinosaur fossils nearly two decades after it was first discovered! Now that is actually funny stuff.

So I see you are back from your new earth indoctrination course. It looks like I was wrong about you just joking around. Now I realize you are certifiable insane. Previous posters have provided links to articles from Christians who support carbon dating methods but you just conveniently ignore them. To have to spell it out that no one have ever found fossils of dinasours and man at the same layer of rock, notice I said layer, not place, which would provethat they coexisted.

You can't have a rational conversation with the insane and you sir definitely fall into that category with your completely insane posts. It goes to show how morally limited your ilk really are when you need a book to tell you what's right and wrong when most people have a natural born ability to know right from wrong. Actually, thinking about it maybe it is better to have the bible to keep people like you in check. Otherwise, your kind would be probably out raping and killing.

Ill give two different argument as to why this syllogism is either not valid or not relevant.

First of all, if God is needed for knowledge to be possible, how can you know there is knowledge when theres no proof of God? You argument is circular. In order to make knowledge possible, you grant that God is real. But then to make God real, you have to appeal back to the fact that we have have knowledge. Your P1 states that if knowledge is possible, God exists. You now have to show that knowledge is possible. You cant do that without using a God that your P1 already states is proven through knowledge. Can you not see how circular that is?

Secondly, let me grant you that your syllogism is true and perfectly valid. God is proven for the purposes of this point. Now prove to me that its the Christian God I should follow and not any of the other thousands of options for God.

So I see you are back from your new earth indoctrination course. It looks like I was wrong about you just joking around. Now I realize you are certifiable insane. Previous posters have provided links to articles from Christians who support carbon dating methods but you just conveniently ignore them. To have to spell it out that no one have ever found fossils of dinasours and man at the same layer of rock, notice I said layer, not place, which would provethat they coexisted.

You can't have a rational conversation with the insane and you sir definitely fall into that category with your completely insane posts. It goes to show how morally limited your ilk really are when you need a book to tell you what's right and wrong when most people have a natural born ability to know right from wrong. Actually, thinking about it maybe it is better to have the bible to keep people like you in check. Otherwise, your kind would be probably out raping and killing.

That's why I gave up on that discussion. You can't have a debate with someone who is narrow minded, dismisses all other facts and holds on to a book written by many people over several hundred years (making it hear-say at best).

I doubt that it is best for people like Statler to be kept in check by the bible. Remember the bible condones rape, murder and incest. The bible is a breeding ground for immorality and abuse. It let's you sin all your life without taking responsibility as long as you confess and accept Jesus as your savior. People as narrow minded as Statler run around plenty. Not all of them are as famous as Koresh or your friendly neighborhood priest or pastor or that televangelist dude but plenty are running around.

Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Originally Posted by phins_4_ever

That's why I gave up on that discussion. You can't have a debate with someone who is narrow minded, dismisses all other facts and holds on to a book written by many people over several hundred years (making it hear-say at best).

I doubt that it is best for people like Statler to be kept in check by the bible. Remember the bible condones rape, murder and incest. The bible is a breeding ground for immorality and abuse. It let's you sin all your life without taking responsibility as long as you confess and accept Jesus as your savior. People as narrow minded as Statler run around plenty. Not all of them are as famous as Koresh or your friendly neighborhood priest or pastor or that televangelist dude but plenty are running around.

Very true. It's just amazing there are people out here that are completely wacko with these beliefs.